Sudan, the largest country in Africa, has been at war for nearly 50 years. We look at three main conflicts:
· A brutal 21-year
civil war between the north and the south that ended in 2005
· The ongoing
humanitarian crisis in Darfur in the west where at least 300,000 have died and 2.9 million been displaced by fighting since 2003
· Tensions in
eastern Sudan where insurgents have threatened to challenge the government for a share of the country's power and natural-resources.
An obvious question is: Why is Sudan plagued by internal conflict, and how are these three conflicts related, if at all? There is no easy answer, but a few explanations do shed light on the problem.
First, colonisers drew the boundaries of present-day Sudan without heed to the different religious and ethnic groups that already inhabited the territory, which was under joint Anglo-Egyptian control until 1956. This set the stage for showdowns between the north, populated predominantly by Arab Muslims, and the south, populated largely by animists and Christians of African origin.
The British lit the tinderbox when they left by leaving an elite group of northerners in charge.
Second, over the years those in power in Khartoum have marginalised southerners, Darfuris and several other groups in various pockets of the country, including provinces in eastern Sudan. In addition, the Islamist policies of the government in the 1990s added to the alienation of the southerners.
Third, rebels in all corners of the country share similar grievances over Khartoum's failure to provide even the most basic of services, and widespread abject poverty has fueled calls to share the wealth.
The discovery of oil in southern Sudan in 1978 only raised the stakes. Sudan rakes in up to $1 billion year in oil exports but there is little in the way of social services to show for it.
In 2005, it looked as though Sudan had finally moved to put its house in order. The government and the main rebel group in the south, the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), signed a peace deal that ended the north-south civil war.
A new power-sharing government was sworn in. But the peace deal looks shaky.
The conflict in Darfur and the possibility of new violence in the east, where rebels have the same grievances as those elsewhere in the country, threaten to derail the entire process.
Former SPLM rebels are now in the central government as ministers, so the fates of the south and of other troubled areas are increasingly linked. And as SPLM soldiers have supported the rebels in the east, the south could yet play a role in further conflict with Khartoum
Obama and Darfur - What to Expect
14 Nov 2008 11:14:00 GMT
Written by: Michael Kleinman
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
U.S. President-elect Barack Obama waves as he leaves his first press conference following his election victory in Chicago, November 7, 2008.REUTERS/Carlos Barria (UNITED STATES)
Yet to get a sense of what an Obama Administration might actually do, it's useful to take a moment and look back at some of the statements he made over the course of the campaign, and even before.
In the second
Presidential debate, Obama offered the outlines of an Obama Doctrine, of when he would intervene in a humanitarian crisis. He said the following:
"So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us. And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible. But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies."
The Obama Doctrine seems to say that the United States has a moral obligation to respond, but a measured moral obligation - idealism tempered by realpolitick. Hence the emphasis on working in partnership with others.
Besides the importance of working with allies, he also mentioned two specific steps he would take. First, providing logistical support to the existing
AU-UN peacekeeping force, and second imposing a
no-fly zone.
Obama has consistently advocated this sort of measured approach. In 2004,
he called for sanctions against Sudan's leaders and oil industry, as well as U.S. logistical support for a peacekeeping force. He reiterated both the need for sanctions (in conjunction with the EU) and the importance of U.S. support for UN peacekeepers in a
November 2007 interview with Save Darfur.
In addition, he recently took a strong line against President Bush's negotiations with Sudan to remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. According to Obama: "
This reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments." He has also spoken
in favor of divestment.It's important to note that though he spoke in favor of a no-fly zone during the second debate, his other comments on the subject have been more ambiguous. He was the
co-sponsor of a 2006 bill supporting a no-fly zone, and then again called for a no-fly zone in a
May 2007 statement. Yet he was
more hesitant in November 2007, saying that as some NGOs oppose a no-fly zone, he would have to evaluate the pros and cons before making a decision.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden has taken a stronger line in the past - in April 2007, he said "
I would use American force now". During the
Vice Presidential debate, however, he advocated a more measured approach, with a focus on implementing a no-fly zone and supporting the AU-UN peacekeeping force:
"I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide."
He also outlined his own vision of when he thinks the US should intervene militarily.
apcom
